Guest column: Open primaries might tamp down partisan politics

Recently, California voters did something that got little attention in this part of the world — but which could change enormously the way politics works in this country.

They passed Proposition 14, which replaces traditional party primary elections with wide-open races. From now on, the two top vote-getters in primaries in our biggest state will go on to run against each other in general elections; regardless of their political party.

There soon will be Democrats running against Democrats in some contests, and Republicans running against Republicans in others.

If the California system catches on and spreads to other states, it is certain to cause vast change to a system of elections that many think no longer works for the majority of people.

What we have now in Michigan and most other places in the country is a method of selecting candidates that contributes to an increasingly partisan and dysfunctional political culture.

Here’s how and why:

Many, if not most legislative districts are gerrymandered to be “safe” for one party or another. Take a district in Detroit. Because the vast majority of the population votes Democratic, everyone knows that the winner of the November election always will be a Democrat.

What that means is that the real contest is in the August primary.

Primary elections produce much smaller turnouts than general elections — sometimes only 10 or 15 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. And those who vote in Democratic primaries tend to come from the party’s base of left-leaning liberal activists.

The result: Winners of primary elections in safe Democratic districts tend to be on the liberal-left end of the political scale.

The opposite pattern plays out in safe Republican districts. Voters in their primary elections tend to be further to the right than the average voter. The predictable result: GOP primary winners tend to be on the conservative end of the political scale.

So our election system skews the results of both primary and general elections toward the extremes. And the result is the fiercely partisan and divisive politics we have today.

Now, California has just torpedoed all that. Since from now on both Republican and Democratic candidates will be running in a free-for-all primary, they have an incentive to seek the maximum number of votes, regardless of party. That means they will want to appeal to moderate “Rs and Ds” and especially to independents! This is no small matter.

In Michigan, for example, more and more citizens are identifying themselves as independents, while hardcore Republicans and Democrats are declining. Bill Ballenger, publisher of Inside Michigan Politics, thinks the Republicans and Democrats tend to have about 30 percent each, while independents now represent as much as 40 percent of the voting public. And it’s not a happy two-fifths of the electorate: Most independents I talk with are frustrated at being dealt out of politics that systematically marginalizes moderate folks.

That’s the case in Michigan, where our primary election system is concentrated in “safe” districts, either Republican or Democratic. It is common knowledge that many Michigan legislative districts are gerrymandered to safely favor one political party or another.

Ballenger, the longtime guru of Michigan politics, estimates that of the 110 state House of Representative districts, around 43 are solidly Democratic and 28 safely Republican.
That’s almost two-thirds of all House districts.

Much the same prevails in the state Senate, where of 38 districts, 15 are safe Democratic, seven Republican.

That’s 58 percent where one party has no chance to win.

That means the majority of citizens don’t live in competitive districts. The heads of both political parties know this. They are used to doing business that way. They don’t like the California solution at all.

Ballenger disagrees: “The California vote is the triumph of the independents who have long resented a system that prevents their voices being heard in either Republican or Democratic primaries. It seems as though this waters down the power of both political parties. You can make a good case that this is a very good reform to try.

I agree. Our political culture is far too partisan in part because of our system for choosing candidates. Adopting open primaries might well just open the door to a better and fairer political system. In any event, it is worth a try.

---- Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is the founder and president of The Center for Michigan. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center for Michigan.

E-mail a letter to the editor for publication in print: pulse@grpress.com Please keep letters to less than 200 words and include your full name, home address and phone number.